The Balance of Decency

[Bereta_Eder]

Yup. I admit I don't know much about it.
Just that he's some clown (granted muricans are that way around the world)

But hillary seems... "unscrupulous".

Anyway the die is cast as we say and all say clinton wins

[Bereta_Eder]

Murica is funny.

There are dead beats the likes of ben and more, that would have been exhiled to fend with the goats, ****ing primitives but also freedom.

I admit I don't like it but people like gian can have a free life so it's cool (much more to do though)

[Bereta_Eder]

Dont' get me started on foreign policy cause swastika
I'm being nice cause there are muricans here - but - as always **** the taliban

[Giancarlo]

Yup. I admit I don't know much about it.
Just that he's some clown (granted muricans are that way around the world)

But hillary seems... "unscrupulous".

Anyway the die is cast as we say and all say clinton wins

Hillary is an angel with a halo over her head compared to Trump. Trump is a sleazeball.

[Bereta_Eder]

Gian was tallking about helicopters.

But now he's an upstanding man.


He says cliton is better, I'll believe him

[Lorizael]

My general rule of thumb is that boycotts should not be considered morally legitimate unless the activity boycotted deserves to be actually illegal. All other constraints on individual liberty should follow the rule of whether allowing the behavior to continue would cause measurable harm. The vast majority of the time, speech causes no measurable harm, and saying otherwise typically entails conflating speech with violence. Which in turn creates a perverse incentive to magnify one's feeling of offense as far as possible in order to shut down all opposition in the name of preventing emotional distress or what-have-you.

I'm not especially concerned with the moral dimension of this but rather the cumulative effect on discourse. For example, you may believe that no amount of awful speech will cause you harm, but I'm sure you believe that some amount of awful speech will cause you to leave or not ever join a conversation. In that case, it could be argued that just enough community policing might have prevented the discourse from descending to its unpalatable level and thus encouraged you (and conceivably others) to participate.

[Bereta_Eder]

Ellestar.
Leave that kid say what's on his mind.

Like serb.

You vultures jumped on him, untill someone came along


This is an american forum.

**** american nazi *****

I can say it and then 10 will jump on me.


Let a different opinion be heard


it's MUCH more interesting

[Dinner]

Wow, that's . . . quite skeezy.

Most of Jesse Jackson's deals are skeezy.

[Elok]

So I hear. Before my time, of course.

I'm not especially concerned with the moral dimension of this but rather the cumulative effect on discourse. For example, you may believe that no amount of awful speech will cause you harm, but I'm sure you believe that some amount of awful speech will cause you to leave or not ever join a conversation. In that case, it could be argued that just enough community policing might have prevented the discourse from descending to its unpalatable level and thus encouraged you (and conceivably others) to participate.

This sounds like "we must exclude some set of people from the conversation for fear that they will exclude a different set of people from the conversation." How do you decide which group to exclude from favor, before the conversation on the relevant material has even occurred?

[Ming]

Most of Jesse Jackson's deals are skeezy.

Yep... many of his "deal" are simply extortion.

[Bereta_Eder]

dinner = nazi

kill dinner
only he goes to 3rd world countries


why???


he talks about meltdowns but can't get a date


put him out of his bastard misery?



nope


no war

yet

[Ming]

I think you have had a few too many drinks tonight

[Bereta_Eder]

true \
leave days

[Bereta_Eder]

I don't need so many days oiff my socilaist europe mkgives them to me

[Lorizael]

This sounds like "we must exclude some set of people from the conversation for fear that they will exclude a different set of people from the conversation." How do you decide which group to exclude from favor, before the conversation on the relevant material has even occurred?

That's what I'm after. But not everything is part of the conversation. I'm worried about excluding those who would be part of the conversation but fear ostracism because their views may be superficially similar to something vile. I'm not concerned with excluding what's vile. That is, if three people are discussing feminism today, and person 1 is gung ho about how we need more of it, and person 2 is worried that sometimes modern feminist policies might actually hurt women, and person 3 believes that all feminists should be raped and then their rape babies should be aborted and raped, I'm not all that worried if person 3 is excluded from the conversation.